Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 23, 2017, 01:14:50 PM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Films of Sergio Leone
| |-+  Once Upon A Time In America (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  NEW DIRECTORS CUT
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 53 Go Down Print
Author Topic: NEW DIRECTORS CUT  (Read 222171 times)
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2936



View Profile
« Reply #255 on: May 02, 2012, 01:42:31 AM »

PAL & NTSC just confuse the issue. Movies can be shown with frame rates outside these standards.

They can, but they aren't. As Noodles has already said. This would be the first time ever that I have heard such a thing.

There are astonishingly much sources for that 220 min runtime, but there also as much sources for the 229 min runtime for the Cannes version. One must be wrong, and as we all have a 229 min version, and there was never any talk about added scenes to a 220 min version, or cut scenes from a 229 version (except censorical cuts), the only conclusion can be that all 220 min sources are most likely wrong.

« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 01:48:44 AM by stanton » Logged

stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2936



View Profile
« Reply #256 on: May 02, 2012, 01:46:59 AM »



My best guess is it's down to a faster frame rate or skipped frames.

Remember my comment on the aspect ratio 1.85 ?

Leone was thinking about how the movie would look on TV before any filming took place.

Yes, but that relates only to the choice of the aspect ratio. Many films were made in these days in that aspect ratio because VHS and TV versions could than be shown in an open matte 1,33:1 aspect ratio.

Logged

drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8316

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #257 on: May 02, 2012, 01:48:01 AM »

Ah that's interesting: I just found a review of the 2 hours version, published in 1984.

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9801E1D6143BF932A35755C0A962948260


The only thing worse than the bastardized version flunking miserably with critics and at the box office, would have been if the bastardized version had actually done well, which may have caused people to actually think it was a legitimate version. As shameful as the bastardized version was, I am so glad that it was such a colossal failure at the box office and with the critics, for that ensured that there was zero doubt as to how completely illegitimate this version was, and that the 229-minute version would come to be seen as the only version with any legitimacy. So once the miserable human filth who will rot in hell bastards at The Ladd Company destroyed this film, it is wonderful that it failed so miserably.

I have never seen the bastardized version (and don't like even being reminded that it ever existed  Angry), but whenever I do think about it, it makes me so sad for Leone. Can you imagine how heartbroken he must have been after spending a decade and a half or so dedicating himself to what is basically his life's project, and having his work destroyed by the sons of bitches in the studio?? I just hope that he knew how much everyone loved the real version, despised the fake version, admired him and loathed The Ladd Co. And that he is smiling in heaven now at the upcoming release  Smiley

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8316

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #258 on: May 02, 2012, 02:18:33 AM »


There are astonishingly much sources for that 220 min runtime, but there also as much sources for the 229 min runtime for the Cannes version. One must be wrong, and as we all have a 229 min version, and there was never any talk about added scenes to a 220 min version, or cut scenes from a 229 version (except censorical cuts), the only conclusion can be that all 220 min sources are most likely wrong.

But as we've mentioned, Frayling says, in the same line (in the Filmography on p. 541), that the Italian version was 218 mins., the UK was 228, and the USA restored print was 227. I find it hard to believe that in the very same line, he would get the USA and GB running times correct, but the Italian running time would (conveniently for us) have a typo -- especially considering all those other sources that Once provided for there being a 220-minute version.

Frayling also says in the OUATIA chapter of STDWD, (on the bottom of p. 460), that the version that screened at Cannes was the 229-minute version.

Therefore, I think it is reasonable to say that ten minutes must have been removed for Italian theaters.

So I will propose that the 1984 releases of the movie were as follows: (this is all a guess, but I think it makes sense):

The bastardized version was released in America;
The "Full Version" (ie. 227-229 mins.) played at Cannes and in the UK;
while for the Italian release, ten minutes were removed from the Full Version.

However, when the film was restored to the Full Version for release on home video, they decided to released that full version on all home video everywhere, including Italy, even though though ten minutes had been removed for Italian theaterical screenings.
(Considering that they released the Full Version on American home video even though the American theatrical version was 85 minutes shorter, is it hard to imagine that they would release the Full Version on Italian home video even though the Italian theatrical version was 10 minutes shorter?


I think this is all a very reasonable possibility considering everything we have discussed... but there is one thing that bothers me about it: The only place that Frayling mentions this 218-minute Italian version is in the Filmography; it is not mentioned anywhere in the OUATIA chapter, even though that chapter has extensive discussions on various running times; Frayling even specifically mentions that for the UK, two minutes of violence were cut (overseen by Leone), so the running time was slightly shorter than the "Fulll Version"; it was 227 mins. Now, if my proposition above is correct, it is very hard to imagine that Frayling would not have specifically mentioned that ten minutes were cut for the Italian release. Even though he does mention in the Filmography that the Italian version was 218 mins., the Filmography is just a brief source for reference, and he certainly should have mentioned it explicitly in the body of the book. That is way too important a point for Frayling to neglect to mention it in the OUATIA chapter, and therefore it makes me seriously doubt whether my proposition is correct.


« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 04:31:02 PM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2936



View Profile
« Reply #259 on: May 02, 2012, 05:52:18 AM »

Phew, now things get pretty tricky.

I have asked an Italian, but his answer adds probably to the confusion:

"I've only ever heard of the 229 min. version, but some bibliographic sources report a 227 minutes runtime and according to the website videoarcheologia.it, usually quite reliable, unlike the Warner Blu-ray and Region 1 DVD the redubbed Italian DVD edition - distributed by the same company - would have an actual runtime of "only" 224 minutes (215 PAL). But I cannot confirm."

Steinwender has researched the Italian version with 229 min.

When I check the www most articles still mention the 269 min version for Cannes this year.

« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 06:06:34 AM by stanton » Logged

drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8316

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #260 on: May 02, 2012, 07:23:56 AM »

Phew, now things get pretty tricky.

I have asked an Italian, but his answer adds probably to the confusion:

"I've only ever heard of the 229 min. version, but some bibliographic sources report a 227 minutes runtime and according to the website videoarcheologia.it, usually quite reliable, unlike the Warner Blu-ray and Region 1 DVD the redubbed Italian DVD edition - distributed by the same company - would have an actual runtime of "only" 224 minutes (215 PAL). But I cannot confirm."

Steinwender has researched the Italian version with 229 min.

When I check the www most articles still mention the 269 min version for Cannes this year.

as I said in a previous post, I wouldn't concern myself with the 227 mins. vs. 229 minutes issue. Frayling says a couple of minutes was cut for the UK release, just to trim some violence, but overseen and approved by Leone. So that's why some are 227 mins. And it's actually 228 mins and 40 seconds, so some may refer to it as 228 while some may use 229. The point is, I am not at all concerned with the issue of 227 vs. 229. I consider that ONE version. I am concerned over the issue of Version A (227-229 mins) vs. Version B (218-220 mins).
(Once you start focusing minute by minute, there could be ten different versions, cuz each country could have cut a different minute of violence). I think the focus should just be on the 227-229 minute Version on the one hand; and the 218-220 minute version on the other

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Online Online

Posts: 5056


Lonesome Billy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #261 on: May 02, 2012, 07:41:53 AM »

+1 for D&D
Especially since NTSC is not exactly 24fps so on such a long movie the difference exists:

229min in 24fps = 227.7min in NTSC

Logged


New music video: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE https://youtu.be/p968oyMo5B0
www.ThibautOskian.com
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2936



View Profile
« Reply #262 on: May 02, 2012, 12:18:05 PM »

Noodles, we are not talking here about NTSC and Pal runtimes.

We are only talking here about cinema runtimes.

In none of my posts have I used the term 2nd theatrical version or 2nd version.  According to Sergio Leone, he cut 50 minutes from his 270 minute version and made a 220 minute (3hr 40) version.  This may or may not be the version that was shown in theaters in Italy or at Cannes.

I've found a couple of further direct comments on the running time from Sergio Leone confirming this.  I'm sceptical of newspaper and magazine writers, who in reality know very little about Sergio Leone or the movie. For the moment I'm sticking with the director of the movie, his family, official sources and Leone experts and perhaps in the next couple of months we'll get information which will clarify things.


Normally you are right, but in that case is the explanation that Leone simply got it wrong the most likely one.

Frankly said I'm a bit confused now. If there ain't a 2nd version, than what's the point? We definitely have a 229 min version. And despite your sources, most if not all other sources only have that 229 min version.

HuhHuh

Logged

stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2936



View Profile
« Reply #263 on: May 02, 2012, 02:30:57 PM »

Once, where do you live?

Logged

noodles_leone
Bounty Killer
*****
Online Online

Posts: 5056


Lonesome Billy


View Profile WWW
« Reply #264 on: May 02, 2012, 02:41:41 PM »

Noodles, we are not talking here about NTSC and Pal runtimes.

Yeah but some of the figures quoted here and there throughout the topic come from DVD running times, or versions watched on TV.
Anyway the point is to say there might be a 229 and a 220 version, but we don't care about 227 and 218 micro changes.

Logged


New music video: ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE https://youtu.be/p968oyMo5B0
www.ThibautOskian.com
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #265 on: May 05, 2012, 05:09:01 AM »

Pardon - I can't believe what you're saying, drinkanddestroy or your definition of "we".

I have 2 DVD versions of OUATIA, both with running times of approx 220 minutes, similar to the one described on the following web site:

http://msb247.awardspace.com/dvd.htm

I also have a VHS tape with a stated running time of 218 minutes together with several other versions.

I swear I first saw this on a flat letterbox DVD. I definitely saw it before the special edition that's currently in circulation cmae out. Can't recall the run time though.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
MatViola
Bandido
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


View Profile WWW
« Reply #266 on: May 05, 2012, 09:45:55 AM »

Drinkanddestroy - "And that he is smiling in heaven now at the upcoming release."


On the other hand, he may be frowning upon the upcoming release, given what he wrote shortly before his death:

“Then there is the very long one that has never been edited and which lasts fifty minutes longer. Four and a half hours. But we rejected the idea of two parts on TV. It is so intricate that it has to be done in one evening. And besides, let’s be honest: this one is my version. The other perhaps explained things more clearly and it could have been done on TV in two or three parts. But the version that I prefer is this one, that bit of reclusiveness is just what I like about it.”

Notice also that he said the extra 50 minutes were never edited.

Mat

Logged
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2936



View Profile
« Reply #267 on: May 05, 2012, 09:54:41 AM »

Actually earlier plan was a film consisting of 2 parts with a 180 min runtime each. That's 360 min. Oh well ...

Logged

Novecento
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519



View Profile
« Reply #268 on: May 05, 2012, 02:45:22 PM »

Drinkanddestroy - "And that he is smiling in heaven now at the upcoming release."


On the other hand, he may be frowning upon the upcoming release, given what he wrote shortly before his death:

“Then there is the very long one that has never been edited and which lasts fifty minutes longer. Four and a half hours. But we rejected the idea of two parts on TV. It is so intricate that it has to be done in one evening. And besides, let’s be honest: this one is my version. The other perhaps explained things more clearly and it could have been done on TV in two or three parts. But the version that I prefer is this one, that bit of reclusiveness is just what I like about it.”

Notice also that he said the extra 50 minutes were never edited.

Mat

Thanks Mat - where's the quote from?

Logged
MatViola
Bandido
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


View Profile WWW
« Reply #269 on: May 05, 2012, 04:08:23 PM »

It's from Oreste De Fornari's 'Sergio Leone: The Great Italian Dream of Legendary America.' Leone discusses each of his films in a chapter called "Leone on Leone." The comments come from an interview De Fornari did with Leone in 1988.

Mat

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 16 17 [18] 19 20 ... 53 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.039 seconds with 19 queries.